CC Filed on 05.02.2011

         Disposed on 19.11.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.

Dated: 19^th  day of November 2011

PRESENT:

                        HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH,  President.

  HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA,  Member.

       HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA,  Member.

---

Consumer Complaint No. 14/2011

Between:

ORDER

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The brief facts of the complaint are that on 25.01.2007 while the complainant was at home, two persons came to his residence posing as representatives of Opposite Party Company and assured that their Company was releasing TVS Motor Vehicle on discount and if they purchased one coupon, they were eligible for one vehicle and the cost of one coupon was Rs.4,990/- and they would deliver vehicle at Saravana T.V.S Showroom in Kolar on 05.02.2007 and invited them to Kolar on 05.02.2007 and went away.    The complainant paid Rs.4,990/- and purchased one D.D. for the said amount and another in the name of one Akmal Pasha.   In all he paid Rs.9,980/- and purchased two D.D. in S.B.I and sent the D.D.s to   Opposite Party No.1.   After 5 days he and Akmal Pashal went to Saravana T.V.S Showroom and showed the coupon cards and asked for T.V.S Victor Motor Bicycle.   The Showroom Proprietor rejected the coupons and said that he had nothing to do with the coupons.   Then the complainant approached R.M.P Infotec Private Limited in Bangalore and they too did not respond.   Then the complainant contacted several officers of Opposite Party Company in Chennai, but it was of no use.    Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint for refund of Rs.9,980/- with interest from 05.02.2007 amounting to Rs.60,000/- and legal costs of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.   

2. The Opposite Parties have appeared and filed common version and affidavit singed by Opposite Party No.1 sought for dismissal of complaint on the grounds that the case is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the complaint is barred by doctrine of abandonment of right.    Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The points that arise for our consideration are:

Point No.1:  Whether the complainant has proved the alleged

                       deficiency in service by the OP?

Point No.2:  To what order?

            4.  Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

1.      Affirmative

2.      As per final order.

R E A S O N S

5. POINT NO.1:    The transaction has taken place on 05.02.2007, however the complaint is not barred by time as the complaint averments go to show that the complainant approached Opposite Party offices at Bangalore and Chennai several times and this has not been specifically denied by Opposite Party in his version.    The Opposite Party has not bothered to give reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant dated 18.01.2011.   The Opposite Parties have targeted these village youths and lured them to purchase T.V.S Victor motorbike on discount.   The Opposite Parties have used unfair trade practices and misled the complainant and others.   This is evident from their hand bills.   The Opposite Parties have admitted to receiving Rs.9,980/- but says it was towards nominating the complainant as marketing distributor and thereby are guilty of deficiency in service.    Hence the Point No.1 is held in affirmative.   

6. POINT NO.2:  As Point No.1 is held in affirmative, we pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed.    The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.9,980/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 05.02.2007 till actual payment and Opposite  Parties are directed to make payment within 30 days, from the date of this order.    The Opposite Parties shall pay costs of Rs.3,000/-.

            Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 19^th  day of November 2011.

T. NAGARAJA                         K.G.SHANTALA           T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH  

   MEMBER                                  MEMBER                              PRESIDENT